IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A123432
|
|
- Camron Barton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Filed 4/1/10 P. v. Jeter CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule (a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule (b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RENEISHA JETER, Defendant and Appellant. A (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. FCR204739) Defendant Reneisha Jeter appeals the restitution order imposed by the trial court following her guilty-plea conviction on the charge of second degree burglary in violation of Penal Code, section 459, subdivision (a). 1 Defendant contends the trial court erred by imposing restitution relating to dismissed charges in the absence of a Harvey waiver. 2 Concluding that defendant s contention has merit, we remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed below. 3 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On or about December 13, 2007, a felony complaint was filed in case number charging defendant and three codefendants with second degree commercial 1 2 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, (Harvey). 3 On February 18, 2010, we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the issue of whether this appeal should be dismissed for failure to obtain a certificate of appealability pursuant to section Upon receipt of the parties briefs, and further consideration of the issue, we are satisfied the appeal may proceed without a certificate of probable cause. 1
2 burglary ( 459) and grand theft ( 487, subd. (a)) relating to an incident at the Bebe store on Union Street on or about September 24, 2007 (counts 1 and 2 respectively); second degree commercial burglary and grand theft relating to an incident at the Coach Store on Clay Street on or about September 26, 2007 (counts 3 and 4 respectively); and, second degree commercial burglary and grand theft relating to an incident at the Bebe store on 20th Avenue on or about November 6, 2007 (counts 5 and 6 respectively). A warrant for defendant s arrest was issued in connection with the felony complaint. The warrant states that in each of the three incidents a group of young people entered the store in question, took merchandise off the racks and fled the store en masse without paying. Defendant was identified as one of the group from footage of the incidents captured on each store s video surveillance camera. Defendant was apparently also charged in a separate matter (case number ) with offenses arising from a similar grab-and-run incident at the Solstice Sunglasses store in the Embarcadero Center on October 3, No documentation pertaining to case number appears in the appellate record for this case. At a hearing on March 20, 2008, and after a knowing and voluntary waiver of her constitutional rights, defendant entered a guilty plea in case number on count 1 (second degree commercial burglary in violation of section 459 relating to the incident at the Bebe store on Union Street on or about September 24, 2007). Defendant entered her guilty plea pursuant to negotiated disposition in which the People agreed to a probationary sentence and moved to dismiss the remaining counts in case number and to dismiss case number in its entirety. The trial court granted the People s motion to dismiss. A sentencing hearing was held on April 11, On defendant s plea of guilty to count 1 in case number , the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of three years. As conditions of her probation, defendant was ordered to serve six months in county jail with credit for 37 actual days served in custody and to make restitution to Coach, Solstice Sunglasses and Bebe. The trial court stated that Coach has claimed $3,530, Solstice... $64,000 and Bebe 2
3 $10,000. Defense counsel then requested that the trial court set a hearing on the issue of restitution because the amounts requested seem[ed] high. Subsequently, a restitution hearing was held on October 28, At the hearing, Cynthia Lewis testified that she works in retail loss prevention for Coach Leatherwear and investigates non-employee thefts at Coach stores. Lewis testified that an incident report prepared in connection with a theft at the Coach store in the Embarcadero Center on September 26, 2007, reported goods stolen valued at $4, Thomas Cowen testified that he is a Loss Prevention Manager with Solstice Marketing Concepts, a company selling fashion sunglasses. Cowen testified that a theft occurring at the Solstice store in the Embarcadero Center on October 3, 2007, resulted in a loss of 161 frames valued at approximately $50, Michael Wolfson testified that he is the manager of loss prevention operations for Bebe Stores, a women s specialty retailer. Wolfson testified that the theft occurring on September 24, 2007 at the Bebe store on Union Street resulted in a loss of $3,500, and that the theft occurring on November 6, 2007 at the Bebe store at the Stonestown Mall on 20th Avenue resulted in a loss of $7, On the basis of the evidence and testimony presented, the trial court awarded restitution to Coach Leatherwear in the amount of $4,524, restitution to Bebe Stores in the amount of $9,800 for both incidents, and restitution to Solstice in the amount of $45,000. The court also ordered that defendants were jointly and severally liable for the 4 This loss amount relates to counts 3 and 4 in case number (second degree commercial burglary and grand theft relating to an incident at the Coach Store on Clay Street on or about September 26, 2007). Counts 3 and 4 were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. 5 This loss relates to the separate matter in case number that was dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement in case number These loss amounts relate to counts 1, 2, 5 and 6 in case number The loss of $3,500 pertains to the September 24 incident at Bebe on Union Street underlying counts 1 and 2 and the amount of $7,000 pertains to the November incident at Bebe on 20th Avenue underlying counts 5 and 6. Counts 2, 5 and 6 were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. 3
4 restitution owed in the total amount of $59,524. Defendant filed a timely appeal of the restitution order on November 6, DISCUSSION Defendant contends that in the absence of a Harvey waiver the trial court erred by imposing restitution based on counts or charges that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. Defendant argues that because no Harvey waiver was obtained at the change of plea hearing as required under section , the trial court was limited to imposing a restitution order only with respect to the September 24, 2007 incident at the Bebe Store on Union Street underlying her guilty plea on count 1. Preliminarily, we address the applicability of section Section states: (a) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere to an accusatory pleading charging a public offense, other than a felony specified in Section or , which public offense did not result in damage for which restitution may be ordered, made on the condition that charges be dismissed for one or more public offenses arising from the same or related course of conduct by the defendant which did result in damage for which restitution may be ordered, may specify the payment of restitution by the defendant as a condition of the plea or any probation granted pursuant thereto, so long as the plea is freely and voluntarily made, there is factual basis for the plea, and the plea and all conditions are approved by the court[;] (b) If restitution is imposed which is attributable to a count dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain, as described in this section, the court shall obtain a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 from the defendant as to the dismissed count. (Ibid [italics added].) Section , subdivision (b) by its own terms applies only to plea bargains as described in this section, i.e., section , subdivision (a). Section , subdivision (a) does not apply to all plea bargains. Rather, section , subdivision (a) states unambiguously that it only applies where a defendant pleads guilty to an offense which... did not result in damage for which restitution may be ordered. In this case, however, defendant pleaded guilty to an offense which did result in damage for which restitution may be ordered. Thus, defendant s plea bargain does not 4
5 fall within the plain meaning of section , subdivision (a). (See People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1126 [ The statute s plain meaning controls the court s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. (Citation.) ].) Accordingly, Harvey waiver language in section , subdivision (b) does not apply here and the trial court was not under a statutory duty to obtain an explicit Harvey waiver before imposing restitution on dismissed counts. Nevertheless, the Harvey decision itself still applies. 7 Harvey requires an agreement before any adverse consequences may result by reason of the facts underlying and solely pertaining to a dismissed count. (Harvey, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 758.) Thus, the question here is whether there was an agreement that restitution could be imposed as to a dismissed count. (See People v. Munoz (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 160, [stating that [a] Harvey waiver permits the sentencing court to consider the facts underlying dismissed counts and enhancements when determining the appropriate disposition for the offense or offenses of which the defendant stands convicted ].) At the change of plea hearing, defense counsel recited the terms of the plea agreement. During that recitation, defense counsel stated: This plea is offered as a result of discussions with the district attorney. And I ve informed Ms. Jeter that the indicated sentence is imposition of sentence will be suspended. [ ] She ll be placed on formal probation to the adult probation department for a period of three years under the following terms and conditions: At this juncture, the following colloquy ensued: Prosecutor: Can we have a stay-away [order] from Solstice Sunglasses at Embarcadero as well as Bebe in Stonestown mall? Ms. Jeter wasn t part of the Coach group? 7 In Harvey, the California Supreme Court held that implicit in any plea bargain is the understanding (in the absence of any contrary agreement) that defendant will suffer no adverse sentencing consequences by reason of the facts underlying, and solely pertaining to, [a] dismissed count. (Harvey, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 758 [italics added].) This contrary agreement proviso is what has since been called a Harvey waiver. (Citation.) (People v. Draut (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 577, 580, fn. 2.) 5
6 Prosecutor: Well, she was part of the Coach. She was part of all of them actually, so should I do the stay away for all of them? Yes. Prosecutor: So that would be for the Bebe at 2995 Union Street, the Bebe in Stonestown mall, the Solstice at Embarcadero, the Coach at Embarcadero, and that s it. You understand the other case is going to be dismissed, the Coach case, but staying away from Coach will be a condition of this one? Defendant: Yes, your honor. Okay. Defense counsel: She s to submit to a DNA sample pursuant to 296 of the Penal Code. [ ] Pay restitution. You have the determined number yet? Prosecutor: I don t have the number. One of the presentence reports this morning said like $1,900 to Solstice, then another one said 10,000, so I don t think we know. Prosecutor: Right. I think part of it was they are looking at the area where the particular person was taking glasses, and assigning well, they know what area if those were Diors or Channels, Fendi or whatever, then assigning a value, approximate value. Defense counsel: Okay, she s to pay restitution as determined by the adult probation department. You have a right to a hearing as to the amount of restitution if that comes to be an issue. This record simply cannot support a finding that defendant agreed to pay restitution to all victims, that is to say, to pay restitution on the dismissed counts. Rather, the record shows that defendant pleaded guilty only to count 1 in return for the dismissal of all other counts, and that she agreed to pay restitution as determined by the adult probation department. Nothing in the record indicates that defendant s agreement to pay restitution related to any count other than the count of conviction (count 1). Thus, in the absence of a contrary agreement that defendant s restitution obligation extended to 6
7 dismissed counts, the trial court committed sentencing error by imposing restitution on those counts. (See Harvey, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 758.) Respondent s assertion to the contrary is unavailing. Respondent relies on the teachings of People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 (Carbajal) and People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) for the proposition that restitution can be imposed as a condition of probation for damages underlying dismissed offenses, uncharged offenses, and offenses resulting in acquittal so long as the restitution award is reasonably related either to the crime of which the defendant is convicted or to the goal of deterring future criminality. (Carbajal, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1123; see also Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at pp ) The crucial distinction between Carbajal/Lent and the case at bar, however, is that those cases did not involve a sentence imposing restitution on counts dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain. Thus, whereas in Lent the California Supreme Court affirmed a judgment imposing, as a condition of probation, restitution of funds involved in a related criminal charge of which defendant was acquitted, the defendant there was sentenced for grand theft following a conviction after a jury trial. (Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at pp. 483, ) In Carbajal, the defendant entered a plea of no contest to the charge that he violated Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a), by colliding with another vehicle and leaving the scene of the accident without supplying his identifying information. (Carbajal, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p ) Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court could order defendant to pay restitution, as a condition of probation, to the owner of the vehicle damaged by defendant in the accident. (Carbajal, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p ) Neither Lent nor Carbajal involved a challenge to restitution imposed on counts dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain. Therefore, they do not control the issue of whether restitution can be imposed on counts dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain absent a Harvey waiver. Accordingly, we decline to rely on Carbajal/Lent in order to nullify the requirement for a Harvey agreement when a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea bargain includes restitution on dismissed counts. 7
8 DISPOSITION The restitution order is reversed and the matter remanded for resentencing consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. Jenkins, J. We concur: Pollak, Acting P. J. Siggins, J. 8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A113716
Filed 3/29/07 P. v. Lopez CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A106090
Filed 7/29/05 P. v. Ingwell CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A115807
Filed 10/19/07 P. v. Hosington CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A123145
Filed 1/12/11 P. v. Small-Long CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 9/28/09 P. v. Taumoeanga CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento)
Filed 7/18/07 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) In re C.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A113296
Filed 4/25/08 P. v. Canada CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 5/19/11 In re R.L. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A105113
Filed 4/22/05 P. v. Roth CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationINTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A114344
Filed 11/19/07 P. v. Anderson CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationSample argument that Estrada retroactivity applies to SB 180
Parts in blue print are instructions to user, not to be included in filed document unless so noted. Sample argument that Estrada retroactivity applies to SB 180 Note: Substantial parts of this argument
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 1/23/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D072121 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN197963) MODESTO PEREZ,
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 10/23/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E062760 v. TIMOTHY WAYNE PAGE, (Super.Ct.No.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 25, 2016 v No. 323848 Kalamazoo Circuit Court NIKOLAS A. SHREVE, LC No. 2011-001201-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 5/10/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S237602 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/2 E064099 STEVEN ANDREW ADELMANN, ) ) Riverside County Defendant and Respondent. )
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A110076
Filed 3/21/06; pub. order & mod. 4/12/06 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HORACE WILLIAM
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
Filed 5/30/18 In re J.V. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A122523
Filed 10/30/09 P. v. Bolden CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 2/24/09 In re J.I. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A105255
Filed 4/21/05 P. v. Evans CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 6/15/15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S202921 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/1 D057392 ERIC HUNG LE et al., ) ) San Diego County Defendants and Appellants. )
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A121535
Filed 4/13/09 In re E.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/25/11 P. v. Hurtado CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DARKE COUNTY : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N...
[Cite as State v. Wright, 2006-Ohio-6067.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DARKE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHN F. WRIGHT Defendant-Appellant Appellate Case No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN
Filed 5/15/17; pub. order 5/30/17 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B271406 (Los Angeles
More informationFN2. The jury found defendant guilt of petty theft and defendant admitted having committed the specified prior.
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A115488
Filed 3/11/08 P. v. Apodaca CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 8/28/09 In re S.D. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 102,129. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ANTHONY ALEXANDER EBABEN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 102,129 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ANTHONY ALEXANDER EBABEN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. K.S.A. 22-3210(a)(4) provides that a trial court may
More informationANTOINE LAMONT THOMAS OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices ANTOINE LAMONT THOMAS OPINION BY v. Record No. 000408 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal,
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 9/15/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY ALLEN MILLIGAN, G039546
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A114558
Filed 5/2/08 P. v. Jackson CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 3/20/09 P. v. Turner CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 11/30/17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S230793 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/2 E062760 TIMOTHY WAYNE PAGE, ) ) San Bernardino County Defendant and Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A106894
Filed 1/9/06 P. v. Carmichael CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 6/28/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B280646 (Los Angeles County Super.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY. v. O P I N I O N. CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court.
[Cite as State v. Wilhite, 2007-Ohio-116.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO CASE NUMBER 14-06-16 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. O P I N I O N KIRK A. WILHITE, JR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationI. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Filed 7/13/07 In re Michael A. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 5/27/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL DAVID CARMONA, JR. et al.,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE VEHICLE CODE MISDEMEANOR GUILTY PLEA FORM. 1. My true full name is
For Court Use Only 1. My true full name is 2. I understand that I am pleading GUILTY / NOLO CONTENDERE and admitting the following offenses, prior convictions and special punishment allegations, with the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A113508
Filed 6/29/07 P. v. Senegal CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 6/16/11 In re Jazmine J. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 6/29/15 In re Christian H. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A126207
Filed 4/15/10 In re Armani T. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No CR No CR
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00133-CR No. 10-15-00134-CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. LOUIS HOUSTON JARVIS, JR. AND JENNIFER RENEE JONES, Appellant Appellees From the County Court at Law No. 1 McLennan
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE B265917
Filed 7/29/16 P. v. Bivens CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIn the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT050498X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 93. September Term, 2006
In the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT050498X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 93 September Term, 2006 FAUSTO EDIBURTO SOLORZANO a/k/a FAUSTO EDIBURTO SOLARZANO v. STATE OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 4/8/13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) S192176 Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) Ct.App. 2/4 B214397 v. ) ) JOSE LEIVA, ) ) Los Angeles County Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HENRY ARSENIO LARA II, Defendant and Appellant. S243975 Fourth Appellate District, Division Two E065029 Riverside County Superior
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-06023-02-CR-SJ-DW ) STEPHANIE E. DAVIS, ) ) Defendant.
More informationPacket Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background
Packet Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background Review from Introduction to Law The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The United States Supreme Court is the final
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 32,910
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationDecided: February 22, S15G1197. THE STATE v. KELLEY. We granted certiorari in this criminal case to address whether, absent the
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 22, 2016 S15G1197. THE STATE v. KELLEY. HUNSTEIN, Justice. We granted certiorari in this criminal case to address whether, absent the consent of the State,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 11/16/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. B239849 (Los Angeles County Super.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A111525
Filed 8/18/06 P. v. Johnson CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. EDDIE CROSS OPINION BY v. Record No JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY APRIL 3, 2007 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Frank, Petty and Senior Judge Willis Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia EDDIE CROSS OPINION BY v. Record No. 2781-04-1 JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY APRIL 3, 2007 COMMONWEALTH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 5/16/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Crim. No. B283857 (Super. Ct. No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 16, 2014
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 16, 2014 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES ALLEN BALLEW Appeal from the Criminal Court for White County No. CR5363 Leon
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NOS. CR 14 585375 CR 14 585580 Plaintiff, JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL vs. ANTIONE TOWNSEND Defendant. JOURNAL ENTRY DENYING THE DEFENDANTS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Carey, 2011-Ohio-1998.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 14-10-25 v. SHONTA CAREY, O P I N I O N DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2004 MICHAEL DWAYNE CARTER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 77242 Richard
More informationGUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE
GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Before completing the questionnaire please note: You must not be currently represented by counsel and the crime and conviction must have occurred in Michigan.
More information2018COA90. No. 16CA1787, People v. McCulley Criminal Law Sex Offender Registration Petition for Removal from Registry
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 9/23/10 P. v. Villanueva CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationTYPE OF OFFENSE(S) AND SECTION NUMBER(S) LIST OFFENSE(S), CASE NUMBER(S) AND DATE(S) 3. CASE NUMBER(S) AND DATE(S)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Reserved for Clerk s File Stamp COUNTY: PLAINTIFF: COUNTY OF EL DORADO PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFENDANT: ADVISEMENT OF RIGHTS, WAIVER, AND PLEA FORM FOR FELONIES
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as In re K.S.J., 2011-Ohio-2064.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO IN RE: K.S.J. : : C.A. CASE NO. 24387 : T.C. NO. A2010-6521-01 : (Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court, Juvenile
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 8/4/2014 :
[Cite as State v. Rivera, 2014-Ohio-3378.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-05-072 : O P I N I O N - vs -
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Tokar, 2009-Ohio-4369.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91941 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY TOKAR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 4/26/2010 :
[Cite as State v. Childs, 2010-Ohio-1814.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-03-076 : O P I N I O N - vs -
More informationLOCAL RULES SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA, COUNTY of ORANGE DIVISION 8 CRIMINAL
DIVISION 8 CRIMINAL Rule Effective Chapter 1. Felony Cases 800. Pretrial Motions in Felony Cases 07/01/98 805. Motions in Capital Cases 07/01/09 806. Subpoena Duces Tecum 07/01/12 Chapter 2. Misdemeanor
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 6/24/15; pub. order 7/17/15 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, E061733 v. ZACKARIAH WILLIAM
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) SHAWN RAMON ROGERS, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. )
More informationALABAMA VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS1
ALABAMA VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS1 Constitution Art. I, 6.01 Basic rights for crime victims. (a) Crime victims, as defined by law or their lawful representatives, including the next of kin of homicide victims,
More informationMANUAL - CHAPTER 15 SENTENCING. Before you accept a guilty plea or start a criminal trial, you should know and follow URPJC 3.08
MANUAL - CHAPTER 15 SENTENCING GENERALLY Before you accept a guilty plea or start a criminal trial, you should know and follow URPJC 3.08 URJPC RULE 3.08 PLEAS A defendant may plead not guilty, or guilty,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-00106-01-CR-W-DW TIMOTHY RUNNELS, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Raines, 2015-Ohio-5089.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 15AP-477 (C.P.C. No. 14CR-3827) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Dawn
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT APPELLANT S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OPENING BRIEF
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERNEST LANDRY, Defendant and Appellant. H040337 (Santa Clara County
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. James, 2008-Ohio-103.] COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES Hon. Julie A. Edwards, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant/ Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A118621
Filed 4/3/08 P. v. Ritch CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Stroub, 2011-Ohio-169.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-10-02 v. EDWARD D. STROUB, O P I N I O N
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-00200-06-CR-W-FJG ) MICHAEL FITZWATER, ) ) ) Defendant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 5/2/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Crim. No. B282787 (Super. Ct. No.
More informationENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO DECEMBER TERM, 2012
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2012-111 DECEMBER TERM, 2012 State of Vermont } APPEALED FROM: }
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. A144157 v. Plaintiff and Respondent, Related Writ Petition Pending A145069
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTHONY TYRONE ROBERTSON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 40000047
More informationSTATE OF OHIO JEFFREY SIMS
[Cite as State v. Sims, 2009-Ohio-2132.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91397 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY SIMS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO CA 11. v. : T.C. NO. 04 CRB 111
[Cite as State v. Bender, 2005-Ohio-919.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2004 CA 11 v. : T.C. NO. 04 CRB 111 JASON G. BENDER : (Criminal
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 1472 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MAURICE J TASSIN
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT STIA 2010 KA 1472 STATE OF LOUISIANA C VERSUS MAURICE J TASSIN Judgment Rendered March 25 2011 Appealed from the TwentySecond
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,864 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,864 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ELIZABETH L. TISDALE, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 KA 0587 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ALFRED LUCAS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 KA 0587 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ALFRED LUCAS Judgment rendered September 14 2007 1 9 f J O Appealed from the 19th
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 12TRD2261
[Cite as State v. Mullett, 2013-Ohio-3041.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2012 CA 45 v. : T.C. NO. 12TRD2261 NEILL T. MULLETT : (Criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A117691
Filed 12/19/08 P. v. Galvan CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res
More informationStages of a Case Glossary
Stages of a Case Glossary Stages of a Case are the specific events in the life of an indigent defense case. Each type of case has its own events known by special names. Following are details about the
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CRIMINAL ACTION : NO. GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS vs. : CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CRIMINAL ACTION : NO. GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY The defendant agrees to enter a plea of guilty to the following
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A125301
Filed 12/23/10 P. v. Tupper CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A125781
Filed 9/30/10 P. v. Romero CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 8/3/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX GERARDO ALDANA, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d Civil No. B259538 (Super.
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Nos & September Term, 2014 ANTHONY NYREKI EDWARDS STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND Nos. 2561 & 2562 September Term, 2014 ANTHONY NYREKI EDWARDS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Wright, Friedman, JJ. CONSOLIDATED CASES Opinion
More information